coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in İstanbul.
5.  On 17 September 1993 the applicant was arrested together with four other suspects in a shop and taken into custody by police officers at the İstanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation. The police found illegal documents, one Kalashnikov rifle, two automatic guns and five other guns in the premises.
6.  On 1 October 1993 the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court. On the same day, she was also brought before a judge at the İstanbul State Security Court who ordered her remand in custody.
7.  On 31 December 1993 the public prosecutor at the İstanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and requested her conviction under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law no. 3713. The applicant was accused of taking part in a number of events, i.e. bombings of shops and cars, aggravated theft and causing bodily injury to third persons.
8.  On 21 March 1994 the İstanbul State Security Court commenced the trial of the applicant together with twenty-three co-accused.
9.  In the meantime, another trial against the applicant before the İstanbul Martial Law Court was pending.
10.  In the course of the criminal proceedings, at the end of each hearing, the İstanbul State Security Court considered releasing the applicant pending trial both ex officio as well as upon her requests. At each hearing, the court taking into account the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case-file, decided to prolong the applicant's remand in custody.
11.  Meanwhile, on 17 November 2000, the applicant's lawyer challenged his client's continued detention before the district court. He submitted, inter alia, that his client had been detained for seven years and two months and that there was no danger that she could destroy the evidence, which had all been submitted to the case file, or that she would abscond. The District Court dismissed his request on 20 November 2000 on the same grounds as before, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.
12.  On 17 December 2003 the İstanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced her to life imprisonment.
13.  The applicant appealed.
14.  On 1April 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first instance court.
15.  Subsequent to promulgation of Law no. 5190 on 16 June 2004, which abolished the State Security Courts, the İstanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the applicant's case. The case is still pending before this court.
16.  On 19 July 2005 the applicant's lawyer challenged his client's continued detention before the District Court. The latter dismissed the request on 22 July 2005 on similar grounds, namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.
17.  On 21 December 2005 the applicant was released pending trial.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in the Krasnodar Region. He is a retired military officer.
6.  On 12 May 2004 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison allowed the applicant's claims against his former military unit and awarded him 215,245.76 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 6,250 euros). The judgment was not appealed against and became final ten days later.
7.  On 29 May 2004 the applicant submitted a writ of execution to the bailiffs' department of the Ministry of Justice.
8.  The bailiffs' department could not decide which bailiff would have territorial jurisdiction over the military unit deployed in Abkhazia, Georgia. Instead, on 7 July 2004 it sent the writ directly to the debtor. The writ was lost by the post.
9.  The bailiffs asked the court to issue a duplicate of the writ of execution. On 3 March 2005 the Military Court of the Sochi Garrison issued the applicant with a duplicate.
10.  On 17 March 2005 the applicant submitted the duplicate to the Sochi department of the Federal Treasury which sent it to the debtor.
11.  On 13 September 2005 the applicant received the judgment debt.
5.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the town of Chistopol, Tatarstan Republic. He is handicapped suffering from a double above-knee amputation.
6.  In early 1990s the applicant acquired State commodity bonds for purchase of a Russian-made VAZ passenger car.
7.  After the State had failed to exchange his bonds for a car, in 1999 the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation. On 28 February 2000 the Supreme Court of the Tatarstan Republic ordered the Ministry of Finance to pay the applicant 67,300 Russian roubles (RUR).
8.  In April 2000 a writ of execution was submitted to the Bailiffs Service of the Ministry of Justice for a further transfer to the local bailiff office which was competent to enforce the judgment.
9.  On 17 November 2000 the Bailiffs Office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow requested the applicant to submit details of his bank account.
10.  In reply to the applicant's complaint about non-enforcement, on 4 December 2000 the Bailiffs Department of the Ministry of Justice told him that he could collect the award from the Bailiff Office of the Central Administrative Circuit of Moscow. On 4 January 2001 the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant that all questions relating to the enforcement of the judgment in his favour had to be addressed to the bailiff service.
11.  It appears that the applicant wrote to the Bailiffs Office of the Central Administrative District of Moscow in October and December 2001, and in March 2002. He also unsuccessfully sought supervisory review of the judgment of 28 February 2000.
12.  According to the Government, on 25 May 2001 a certain Mr K., pretending to act on the applicant's behalf, received the award under the judgment of 28 February 2000.
13.  On 19 June 2006 the monies due to the applicant were transferred into his bank account.
4.  The applicants are Russian nationals who live in the town of Astrakhan in the Astrakhan Region. They are employees of a private airline company, OAO “Aviakompaniya 'Astrakhanskiye Avialinii'”.
5.  On the dates set out in the schedule the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit of the Sovetskiy District of Astrakhan accepted the applicants' actions against their employer. The employer was to pay them certain amounts in wage arrears and work-related benefits. The judgments were not appealed against and became final.
6.  On an unspecified date the President of the Astrakhan Regional Court lodged an application seeking a supervisory review of the judgments made in the applicants' favour.
7.  On 14 August 2002 the Presidium of the Astrakhan Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments and remitted the cases for re-examination. The Presidium noted that the Justice of the Peace had erred in application of the “material and procedural law”.
8.  On 3 October 2002 the Justice of the Peace of the 6th Court Circuit dismissed the applicants' actions in full. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in the town of Nalchik, in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic of the Russian Federation. The applicant is a lawyer.
6.   On 28 November 2002 the Nalchik Town Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic awarded the applicant 27,780 Russian roubles (RUR) in outstanding child benefits against the Ministry of Labour of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic. It also ordered that starting from 1 December 2002 the Ministry of Labour pay the applicant RUR 70 (about 2.2 euros) a month for each of his three children. The amount was to be increased in line with the statutory minimum wage.
7.  On 14 April 2003 the lump sum was paid to the applicant.
8.  On 18 November 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the monthly payments.
9.  The bailiffs applied to the Nalchik Town Court, asking to clarify the operative part of the judgment of 28 November 2002. On 5 July 2004 the court amended the judgment and specified the names of the children and their dates of birth.
10.  The Ministry of Labour asked the court to review the judgment of 28 November 2002 on account of newly-discovered facts. They submitted that the applicant had divorced his wife and that the children had stayed with the mother. The applicant thus no longer had the right to child benefits. On 2 December 2004 the Nalchik Town Court dismissed the request as having no basis in the domestic law.
11.  The applicant challenged the bailiffs' failure to act before a court. On 7 February 2005 the Nalchik Town Court held that the bailiffs had failed to undertake the steps required under the domestic law to secure enforcement of the judgment. On 2 March 2005 the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic upheld the decision on appeal.
12. On 19 October 2005 the applicant received the child benefits for the period from December 2002 to September 2005, and on 10 April 2006 for the period from October 2005 to April 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Moscow. He is a retired military officer.
6.  In 2001 he brought proceedings against the Military Service Commission of Moscow (Военный комиссариат г. Москвы – “the Commission”) for recalculation of his pension in view of the fact that he served in the extreme north of Russia which made him eligible for a higher pension.
7.  On 12 March 2002 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow granted the applicant's claim and adjusted his pension by a coefficient 1.4 as from 17 September 2001.
8.  The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the judgment, and it became binding and enforceable on 22 March 2002.
9.  On 3 November 2003 the Commission filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment, claiming that the civil-law provisions on which the court based its judgment were not relevant to the applicant.
10.  On 19 May 2004 the applicant received notification of the initiation of the supervisory-review procedure.
11.  On 20 May 2004 the Presidium of the Moscow City Court held a supervisory-review hearing. It held that the first-instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law. On that ground it quashed the judgment of 12 March 2002 and remitted the matter for a fresh examination. Before the announcement of the judgment the applicant was asked to wait outside the courtroom. At the same time the respondent remained there. The decision of the court was announced to the applicant by the bailiff. The applicant received the final decision on 4 August 2004.
12.  The applicant sought to initiate the supervisory review of the decision of 20 May 2004, but on 25 August 2004 his request was dismissed.
13.  The new hearing of the case was scheduled for 13 August 2004. Since the applicant was outside of Moscow and could not attend it, his representative asked the court to postpone the hearing until 5 September 2004. However, the court did not reply to this request.
14.  On 1 September 2004 the Tverskoy District Court of Moscow left the applicant's action without consideration for his failure to appear twice before the court. The applicant was never served with the above decision.
5.  On 12 October 2000 the applicant company's premises were expropriated and demolished. The applicant company sued the Khabarovsk Town Council for compensation for the expropriated property. On 3 May 2001 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region allowed the claim and awarded it 5,335,963 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 208,000 euros) against the Khabarovsk Town Council.
6.  On 11 April 2003 the Appellate Division of the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region upheld the judgment on appeal. The judgment became enforceable.
7.  On 22 May 2003 the bailiffs' service opened enforcement proceedings. They were subsequently stayed at the debtor's request until 21 June 2003.
8.  On 29 July 2003 the Federal Commercial Court of the Far-Eastern Circuit upheld the judgment of 3 May 2001 in the final instance.
9.  On 8 September 2003 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region stayed the enforcement proceedings until 23 September 2003.
10.  On 23 September 2003 the Khabarovsk Town Council challenged before a court the bailiff's order to write the debt off its bank account. It also asked the court to stay the enforcement proceedings pending examination of the complaint. On 25 September 2003 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region granted the request for a stay of the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 17 December 2003 the Appellate Division of the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region held in the final instance that the bailiff's order had been lawful. On 31 December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were resumed.
12.  On an unspecified date the applicant company received RUR 260,000.
13.  The Khabarovsk Town Council, for a third time, applied to a court for a stay of the enforcement proceedings because it had no available funds. On 23 August 2004 the Commercial Court of the Khabarovsk Region allowed the Council's request and ordered a stay of the enforcement proceedings until 31 December 2004.
14.  On 17 January 2005 the applicant company and the Khabarovsk Town Council concluded a remission-of-debt agreement. The Town Council undertook to pay the applicant company RUR 4,000,000 by 20 January 2005. The applicant company agreed to make a charitable contribution of the outstanding amount of RUR 1,075,963 for the purposes of town development. The agreement continued as follows:
“[The applicant company] undertakes to withdraw and not to resubmit the writ of execution no. 0009949, issued pursuant to the judgment [of 3 May 2001], and renounces all other pecuniary claims against the Khabarovsk Town Council relating to the demolition of [the applicant company's premises] and to the circumstances established by the above court judgment.”
15.  On 19 January 2005 the applicant company received RUR 4,000,000.
16.  On 26 January 2005 the applicant company withdrew the writ of execution. On 8 February 2005 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the judgment of 3 May 2001 had been fully enforced.
4.  The applicant resides in Kharkiv, Ukraine.
5.  On an unidentified date the applicant instituted proceedings in the Poltavskyy District Court against the Makarenko Scientific and Research Company (Науково-дослідницьке господарство ім. Макаренка), which was at the material time owned by the State, claiming compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. On 29 May 2001 the court awarded the applicant 19,344.85[1] Ukrainian hryvnas (UAH) (Рішення Полтавського районного суду Полтавської області).
6.  On 19 September 2001 the Poltava District Bailiffs' Service (Відділ Державної виконавчої служби Полтавського районного управління юстиції) initiated the enforcement proceedings.
7.  By letters of 10 and 14 May 2002 the Bailiffs' Service informed the applicant that it was not possible to sell the debtor's property as, according to the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property, on 26 December 2001 a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the State holds at least 25% of the share capital had been introduced.
8.  On an unidentified date before July 2003 the enterprise was privatised.
9.  On 14 November 2003 the judgment of 29 May 2001 was enforced in full.
5.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant is a public prosecutor. According to Law no. 902-XII of 29 January 1992 the local authorities are obliged to provide public prosecutors with an apartment within one year of their commencing employment. In 1999 the applicant filed an official request with the local council for an apartment. The local council replied that due to the lack of funds allocated from the central budget, no new apartments had been built and the provisions of the law could not be enforced.
8.  In March 2000 the applicant brought a civil action against the local council. On 25 May 2000 the Chişinău District Court ordered the local council to provide him with an apartment. No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final and enforceable 15 days later.
9.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. Because the local council did not comply with the judgment of 25 May 2000 and with other judgments, it was fined 1,800 Moldovan lei (MDL) by a decision of 9 February 2001 of the Chişinău District Court. According to the Government, the same court fined the local council MDL 2,700 on 17 February 2001 on account of its continued failure to enforce the judgment. The applicant disputes that the second fine was ever imposed.
10.  On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice, complaining about the non-enforcement of the judgment. In a letter addressed to the applicant on 26 December 2000, the Ministry of Justice assured the applicant that everything possible was being done to enforce the judgment.
11.  On 23 December 2001 the applicant wrote another letter to the Ministry of Justice. That letter was forwarded to the Chişinău District Court. The applicant also wrote letters on numerous occasions to the Prime Minister and the President of Moldova.
12.  The judgment of 25 May 2000 has still not been enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Novosibirsk.
5.  On 25 December 2002 the Mirninskiy District Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the applicant's action against the Ministry of Finance and awarded her 138,967 Russian roubles (RUR, approximately 4,243 euros) in compensation for a special-purpose settlement order by the terms of which the Government was to provide her with a car.
6.  On 17 February 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment on appeal.
7.  Enforcement proceedings were instituted, but on 3 July 2003 the Moscow bailiffs' office returned a writ of execution to the applicant instructing her to lodge it with the Ministry of Finance. On 2 September 2003 she complied with the instructions.
8.  On 14 August 2004 the Ministry of Finance paid the applicant RUR 61,427.04.
9.  On 1 October 2004 the Ministry of Finance motioned the President of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic to review the judgments of 25 December 2002 and 17 February 2003.
10.  On 23 December 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 25 December 2002 and 17 February 2003 and dismissed the applicant's action. The Presidium noted that the District and Regional courts had incorrectly assessed and applied substantive legal norms.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Badacsony.
5.  In the context of a 1993 dispute concerning a loan given to the applicant by a savings bank, in 1995 execution proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
6.  On 21 January 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Tapolca District Court requesting that the execution be halted or limited. On 8 March 2000 the District Court suspended the execution. On 14 November 2000 the Veszprém County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias.
7.  Hearings took place on 17 April and 18 September 2001, and on 14 March, 9 May, 11 July, 3 October and 28 November 2002.
8.  On 13 February 2003 the District Court decided to discontinue the execution but dismissed the applicant's other related claims. On 16 June 2003 he appealed concerning the latter issues.
9.  On 28 January 2004 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed that part of the decision of 13 February 2003 which had been appealed.
10.  On 13 April 2004 the Veszprém District Court was appointed to rehear the case. On 17 May 2004 the applicant modified his action. For reasons of competence, the District Court forwarded the file to the Regional Court on 3 June 2004. On 10 September 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and referred the case back to the District Court.
11.  Hearings were held on 11 November and 16 December 2004, and on 20 January, 15 February and 8 March 2005.
12.  On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly found for the applicant.
13.  On 31 August 2005 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed this decision.
14.  In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 2005 the District Court held a hearing. On 9 December 2005 it appointed an expert who presented his opinion on 17 February 2006. According to the information in the Court's case file, the proceedings are apparently still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in the town of Gorlivka, Donetsk region.
5.  On 18 April 2002 the Tsentralno-Miskiy Court of Gorlivka awarded the applicant UAH 8,888.37[1] against the State-owned coal-mine Lenina (hereinafter “the Lenina Mine”) in compensation for social benefits arrears and ordered the Social Security Fund to pay the applicant UAH 143.88[2] monthly as of 1 April 2001. This decision became final on 20 May 2002.
6.  On 29 July 2002 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 18 April 2002. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.
7.  On 6 September 2002 the Kalininsky Bailiffs' Office of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Bailiffs”) initiated the enforcement proceedings in the case.
8.  On 28 December 2002 the Lenina Mine was re-organised into a structural division of the State-owned company “Artemvugillya”, which on 18 August 2004 was re-organised into the State-owned Donetsk Mining Company.
9.  On 22 September 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount of social benefits arrears awarded him under the judgment of 18 April 2002.
10.  To the extent that the judgment of 18 April 2002 concerned the monthly payments to the applicant by the Social Security Fund, it was enforced in due time.
11.  On 29 April 2003 the Kalininsky District Court of Gorlivka (hereinafter “the Kalininsky Court”) ordered the State-owned coal-mine Gayevogo (hereinafter “the Gayevogo Mine”) to pay the applicant UAH 4,168.25[3] in compensation for salary arrears. This decision became final on 25 June 2003.
12.  On 27 June 2003 the Bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings.
13.  Between February 2003 and February 2005 the Donetsk Commercial Court on three occasions initiated and terminated the bankruptcy proceedings against the Gayevogo Mine.
14.  On 3 February 2005 the Kalininsky Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation against the Gayevogo Mine and the Bailiffs for failure to enforce the judgment of 29 April 2003.
15.  On 1 April 2005 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The applicant's cassation appeal was left without consideration for failure to comply with the formalities prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.
16.  On 17 August 2005 the applicant was paid the total amount awarded to him under the judgment of 29 April 2003.
17.  In June 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State Pension Fund seeking reassessment of his pension. On 6 December 2004 the Kalininsky Court found against him. The applicant did not appeal against this decision. In 2005 a similar claim was left without consideration for failure to comply with the procedural formalities.